Border control

Henry J. Waters III

Thursday

Apr 29, 2010 at 12:01 AMApr 29, 2010 at 11:42 AM

The state of Arizona has passed a tough new law to control illegal immigration. It authorizes police to require proof of legal status for anyone suspected of violation, raising widely expressed concerns about racial profiling.

Arizona has a long and porous border with Mexico. Illegal immigration is common, and perpetrators are overwhelmingly Mexican. To prove proper documentation, it only makes sense to primarily check people apparently from Mexico.

Yes, this is racial profiling, yet police will have no other such indicator of suspects. Yes, it is discriminatory, because police wisely will concentrate on people who fit the profile rather than waste time on the less likely. Those who look Latino will be more likely targets than black people, for instance.

This raises the entire debate about required proof of identification for citizens. Already government-issued proof is needed for legal authority to drive a motor vehicle, for voting and for other privileges of society. But civil libertarians draw lines when basic citizen rights seem at hand. It’s all right to make auto drivers prove eligibility. After all, driving is a privilege, not a basic right. But it’s not all right to require similar proof to walk the streets or attend public school.

We do have laws requiring permission to be in the United States legally, but so far we hesitate to enforce them as diligently as we could. Everyone agrees in principle that we should close our borders to illegal immigrants, but after failed federal attempts to do so, we argue whether Arizona should have its own laws on the subject. Since the state has no power to deport, its new law imposes fines and potential jail time.

It is the pesky nature of things for law enforcement profiling to occur. An Albanian friend who looks the part of an Arabic troublemaker is routinely treated with suspicion at airports even though he is a legal U.S. citizen holding a high-level job in higher education. He has learned how to quickly prove his status rather than gripe about the situation.

Police should not harass suspects for no reason other than appearance, but they can be allowed to courteously ask for identification, just as traffic cops do when we are pulled over. Occasionally one or the other party, the enforcer or the subject, might act improperly, causing the relationship to sour, but almost always a legitimate purpose is served and, unless good reason exists, the subject is promptly told goodbye and wished well.

If the mere act of stopping and asking is protested, legitimate official inquiry might be stymied. The trick is to decide what is legitimate. If we lived in Arizona, chances are we might think properly checking the status of apparent Mexicans is legitimate. Reiterate “properly.”

It would be lovely if no reason existed to suspect ordinary citizens of anything justifying a police inquiry. We might as well wish for a full moon every night. In Arizona, determining immigration status of people apparently from Mexico is a reasonable way to enforce border law. We civil libertarians should judge how they do it, not whether they should be allowed to do it at all.

HJW III

The reason our flag is different is because it stands for burning the flag.

— GARY L. ACKERMAN, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, D-N.Y., 2004

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.